JUDGMENT : P. Rajamanickam, J. (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree, dated 06.03.2019 passed in M.C.O.P. No.2295 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Madurai.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the respondent /Transport Corporation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order/award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No.2295 of 2017, dated 06.03.2019. 2. The respondent herein has filed M.C.O.P.No.2295 of 2017 under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The learned Tribunal, by the order/award dated 06.03.2019 has partly allowed the said claim petition, directing the appellant herein/Transport Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.26,70,870/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest from date of petition till the date of realization excluding the period during which the claim petition was dismissed for default (i.e from 20.08.2018 to 03.12.2018) and also directed to pay the costs. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/transport Corporation has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as described before the Tribunal 4. The averments made in the claim petition are in brief as follows:- (i) The petitioner is an injured and he is aged about 51 years. The petitioner started his carrier as Software Developer in the year 1991 and he reached the position as Manager in the field of Information Technology and worked in TGS ECOM Private Limited, Bangalore and he was earning Rs. 37,500/- per month + incentives + shift allowance and other allowances. On 22.04.2017 at about 1.45 p.m, the petitioner was standing at Silkboard Bus Stop in H.S.R Ring Road in Bangalore City for boarding a bus to go to Hosur. At that time, a bus belonging to the respondent State Transport Corporation bearing Regn.No.KA 57 F 0949 came to pick up the passengers and stopped at the Silkboard bus stop on the Hosur Road and the driver of the said bus has opened the central locking doors. At that time, the petitioner was getting inside through the middle central door way, which is specifically meant for male passengers. At that time, the petitioner was getting inside through the middle central door way, which is specifically meant for male passengers. The driver of the said bus rashly and negligently moved the bus and hence, the petitioner fell from the footboard and got run over by the left side rear wheel of the same bus on his left leg. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained serious injury making the bones and flesh to crush to such a state that which made consequence to “Guillotine Amputate his left leg above the knee.” (ii) The said accident led to loss of left leg that too above the knee. With the aid of some good samaritans, the petitioner was taken to a Private Hospital namely Prasanth Hospital in Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Subsequently, on the next day, he was sent to TVS Lakshmi Hospital for complicate treatment and later on, he was shifted to Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre in Madurai for critical intensive care treatment, where, the petitioner was admitted as inpatient and was kept under critical medical monitoring for a period of 35 days. Thereafter, he was discharged on 28.05.2017. Still now, the petitioner is under the course of sequential treatment. With regard to the aforesaid accident, an F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.56/2017 (by the Madivala Police Station) under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C and also under Sections 134(B) and 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver of the said bus and the case is pending for investigation. At the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was earning Rs.37,500/- per month + incentives + shift allowance and other allowances. The petitioner's nature of job requires him to make effective use of his legs as a Team Leader standing and explain team presentation. Some times, he has to travel to work place. His locomotion ability is totally paralysed and hence, he completely lost the earning capacity. Therefore, the petitioner claims Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation. 5. The averments made in the counter filed by the respondent/Transport Corporation are in brief as follows:- The petitioner has suppressed the real facts regarding the manner in which, the accident occurred and has given false and distorted version to suit his claim. Therefore, the petitioner claims Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation. 5. The averments made in the counter filed by the respondent/Transport Corporation are in brief as follows:- The petitioner has suppressed the real facts regarding the manner in which, the accident occurred and has given false and distorted version to suit his claim. The respondent/Transport Corporation came to understand that on 22.04.2017 at about 1.45 p.m, the respondent's driver drove the bus bearing Regn.KA 57 F 0949 at moderate speed by adopting all the traffic rules and regulations. At about 1.45 p.m, the bus was stopped at Silk Board Junction bus stop for alighting and boarding the passengers. Thereafter, the bus was moving and at that time, suddenly, the petitioner, who was boarding through the middle of the bus entrance carelessly, fell down from the bus and sustained multiple injuries. Hence, the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of the petitioner and hence, the respondent/Transport Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. The various allegations made in the petition regarding the occupation, income and age of the petitioner, nature of the injuries suffered by him, the period of treatment taken by him, the amount alleged to have been spent by him towards medical aspects, the alleged disabilities suffered by him and loss of income are not admitted. The petitioner's claim of Rs.1 crore is highly excessive and therefore, the respondent/Transport Corporation prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. During enquiry, on the side of the petitioner/claimant, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one more witness as P.W.2. He has marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.33 as exhibits. On the side of the respondent, the driver of the bus was examined as R.W.1. However, no exhibit was marked on the side of the respondent. Medical records produced by the P.W.2 were marked as Exs.X.1 and X.2. 7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the materials placed before it, awarded the compensation of Rs.26,70,870/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs seventy thousand eight hundred and seventy only) under the following heads:- Sl.No Description Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 1. Loss of income Rs. 22,00,000/- 2. For hospital charges and medical bills, on the basis of Exs.P.6, 8, 10 and 11 Rs. 3,70,870/- 3. For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 4. For extra nutrition Rs. 25,000/- 5. For attendant charges Rs. 12,000/- 6. For transport expenses during treatment period Rs. 12,000/- 7. Loss of income Rs. 22,00,000/- 2. For hospital charges and medical bills, on the basis of Exs.P.6, 8, 10 and 11 Rs. 3,70,870/- 3. For pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 4. For extra nutrition Rs. 25,000/- 5. For attendant charges Rs. 12,000/- 6. For transport expenses during treatment period Rs. 12,000/- 7. For damage to clothes Rs. 1,000/- Total Rs. 26,70,870/- The learned Tribunal also directed the respondent/transport Corporation to pay interest for the aforesaid amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization excluding the period for which the petition was dismissed for default (from 20.08.2018 to 03.12.2018) and also directed the respondent to pay the costs to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company/respondent has filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 8. Heard Mr.K.Gokul, learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation and Mr. A.SenthilKumar, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Transport Corporation has submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of the petitioner. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of R.W.1, who has deposed that when the door was in locking condition, the petitioner was trying to get into the bus and fell down. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to consider that the criminal case, which was launched against the driver of the bus (R.W.1) was ended in acquittal and hence, the R.W.1 (driver of the bus) is in no way responsible for the said accident. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- for loss of income by taking the income of the petitioner as Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and applying the multiplier 11. The same seems to be higher and error in law. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal fixed the disability at 80% and that being so, while calculating the loss of income, only 80% of disability should be taken into account, but the tribunal has erroneously awarded compensation by saying that the petitioner has lost 100% earning capacity. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,70,870/- towards medical expenses without any documents. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,70,870/- towards medical expenses without any documents. He further submitted that in any event, the award of the tribunal is highly excessive and therefore, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order/award passed by the learned Tribunal and dismiss the claim petition. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that the driver of the bus (R.W.1), in his evidence has not denied the fact that the petitioner fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. He further submitted that it is the duty of the driver to confirm that the passengers were fully entered into the bus before moving the bus, but, in this case, R.W.1 has moved the bus negligently, when the petitioner was trying to enter into the bus through the middle door. He further submitted that though R.W.1 has claimed that the criminal case was ended in acquittal, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact that R.W.1 failed to produce a copy of the judgment passed in the criminal case and also the fact that the FIR has been registered against the R.W.1 only, has held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of R.W.1. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and medical records would clearly show that the petitioner's left leg was amputated above knee level and the said disability was 80%. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and documentary evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that due to the said disability, the petitioner has lost 100% earning capacity. He further submitted that the petitioner has proved his avocation and income and medical expenses by producing documentary evidence and taking into consideration of the same, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.26,70,870/- and the same is just compensation and in the said award, this Court need not interfere and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the civil miscellaneous appeal and confirm the order/award passed by the learned Tribunal. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the documents available on record carefully. 12. 11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the documents available on record carefully. 12. A perusal of the order/award passed by the learned Tribunal would show that in order to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the respondent's driver, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and he has deposed as to how the accident took place. According to the petitioner, when he was trying to board the respondent's bus, the driver of the said bus (R.W.1) has moved the bus rashly and negligently and hence, he fell down from the bus and the left side rear wheel of the same bus ran over his left leg and caused crush injury. 13. Exs.P.1 & P.2 (F.I.Rs) would show that with regard to the aforesaid accident, a case was registered against the driver of the bus (R.W.1) in Madivala Traffic Police Station in Cr.No.56 of 2017 under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C and also under Sections 134(B) and 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Exs.P.3 to P.5 would show that in pursuance of the F.I.R, the Police has investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against R.W. 1. The oral evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1) is corroborated by Exs.P.1 to P.5. Though the R.W.1 has deposed before the Tribunal that the criminal case, which was launched against him ended in acquittal, he has not produced a copy of the judgment passed in the criminal case. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the R.W.1. Even assuming that the R.W.1 was acquitted in the criminal case, the judgment passed in the criminal case will not bind upon the Tribunal. It has to independently assess the evidence adduced before it and take decision dehors the judgment of acquittal in criminal case. In this case, the Tribunal on independent consideration the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the R.W.1 (driver of the bus). This Court, on independent assessment of the materials, is also of the view that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the R.W.1. 14. This Court, on independent assessment of the materials, is also of the view that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the R.W.1. 14. The petitioner claims that at the time of accident, he was 51 years old and he started his carrier as a Software Developer in the year 1991 and raised to the position of a Manager (Technical Support) in the field of Information Technology by his stern hard work and at the time of accident, he was working as Manager Technical Support in Process Ware System Private Limited in Bangalore and earned Rs.37,500 per month + incentives + other allowances. In support of his claim, he has produced Exs.P.15 to P.31. But the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the fact that though the petitioner is neither an Engineering Graduate nor a Diploma Holder in Computer Science, he undertook several project works in various Companies, has fixed the petitioner's income at Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. Further, considering the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner and also the fact that the left leg was amputated above the knee joint and the disability certificate (Ex.P.32) issued by the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, it has held that the petitioner had sustained 80% permanent partial disability. Further, it has held that since the petitioner's left leg was amputated, above the knee joint, he could not undertake any project work as he done before the accident and hence, he lost 100% earning capacity and accordingly, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, by following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal has applied 11 multiplier and arrived loss of income as (Rs.2,00,000 x 11) Rs.22,00,000/-. Further, Exs.P. 6, 8, 10 and 11 (medical bills) would show that the petitioner has spent Rs.3,70,870/- towards medical expenses and taking into consideration the above medical bills (Exs.P6, 8, 10 and 11), the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,70,870/-. It also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nutrition and Rs.12,000/- towards expenses for engaging an assistant during the treatment period and Rs.12,000/- for transport expenses and Rs.1,000/- for damages caused to the clothes and totally awarded a sum of Rs.26,70,870/-. 15. 3,70,870/-. It also awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nutrition and Rs.12,000/- towards expenses for engaging an assistant during the treatment period and Rs.12,000/- for transport expenses and Rs.1,000/- for damages caused to the clothes and totally awarded a sum of Rs.26,70,870/-. 15. This Court, on independent assessment of materials, is of the view that the aforesaid amount is just and reasonable compensation. This court does not find any merit in this appeal and hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the order/award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 2295 of 2017, dated 06.03.2019. There is no order as to costs.